Game 10

Changamire Dombo asked his council of chiefs what they thought about receiving Black slaves as war booty, if we joined Portugal in fighting over in Madagascar back in 1700 (this was all printed in the newspaper iirc, so not a state secret). I, personally, wasn't sure about the slavery issue against fellow Africans (I hadn't read up as much history as I have now), but was told by my chiefs that, basically, they couldn't give a toss.

I'd recommend having your (Abyssinian) character ask his advisers their thoughts on slavery and fighting the slave trade. Obviously there's an element of hypocritical practice by some European nations (historically, and, possibly, in-game) to also consider. Question: when is a slave worth saving? Answer: when they're Christian. Question: is slavery wrong? Answer: not when we (as a nation) are benefiting from it. But that is all part of the fun of the game. Working around these contradictions, and historic beliefs that differ from the modern.

I will ask the Bishop to assemble a religious council on the matter and bring in wise men and women, the final laws on this will come from them, if God says its wrong then its wrong but I want a hard decision blessed by God.

Like I noted a system will be allowed for those who have debts or commit crimes an indenturing servitude more security for freemen who have debts or who are poor and such support can help them over criminals. But lifetime bondage is the issue. But after his spies find out how they are being treated by supposedly good Christians in the Americas I have a spy going there, not saying where, it will likely tip the balance against it. So will wait until later next year to make a final decision.

If we side against it, well we will be doing so decisively openly letting the nations what treatment the good Christians nations are doing to their slaves in truth it was often far worst than under Islam which in comparison treated slaves better. Sad.

But my plans are a policy just for the Abyssinian Empire and its subjects and if your kidnapping them well the response won't be pleasant.

It probably should be noted that most slave raids were conducted by African Kingdom's and sometimes by Arabs.

European slavers tended sail to West Africa using fairly small ships & crews and buy slaves from local suppliers such as the Asante Kingdom rather than doing much actual slave taking themselves. Partly because get a few miles inland and most European's would be lost but mostly due to the fact that this Coast is a really unhealthy area for Europeans (the White Mans grave) and Slave ships wanted to be in and out as quickly as possible.

The problem for Africa was not European slave raiders but rather that the huge demand for labour in the America's (mostly due to small pox and other European diseases killing an estimated 100M Indians in a hundred years) offered African chiefs and Kingdoms the chance to make huge profits from attacking other tribes and such Slave Wars destroyed much of West Africa. Bit like how modern demand for diamonds and metals and conflicts over these resources had made some individual very, very rich but have left DR Congo and some other African Countries poorer than other countries lacking (blood) diamonds.

So if you ever get over to the West the foe for your Noble Christian Emperor will not be European Christians but evil pagan warlords like the Asante.

In the East the its a rather more tradition foe........Islamic raiders waging Jihad and taking slaves from Christians and Pagans alive. Keeping some and flogging others in Ottoman and Indian markets. Actually Black Eunich's played a very important part in the running of the Ottoman Porte and other Islamic Courts was a really good job for your average goat herder apart from one obvious disadvantage.

If during the course of your crusade against Muslim slavers if you take captives guess you could always exchange them for Christain captives in Muslim states or give them the chance to convert?

Well... If Zanzibar needed a new source of slaves, since the usual trade routes are disrupted. And Changamire Dombo married the Princess of Togo, then offered his new father-in-law an avenue to boost Togo's slaving business. And Portugal and other's obtained their slave requirements from Rozwi markets. Rozwi's treasury might just benefit.

You go there, Abyssinia. Take on the fight against slavery. Go for the Omanis (please!)

Not that I want to sway your decisions ... and I wasn't going to mention, the above, yesterday

I was only joking, yesterday, about the Rozwi slave markets. Its something that various people have contacted me about since 1700, but Rozwi isn't structured to run such a trade at a national level. Same as black powder weaponry; the State isn't interested.

I'm playing the whole south east Tribal African thing.

The issue of slavery has come up in Game 10's newspapers, once or twice, recently (though in the form of Christian versus Muslim efforts in the Levant area). So I'm sure that some European states would contact Abyssinia if they read a statement on your anti-slavery beliefs, and would look to forge diplomatic and working relationships between yourselves. Moghul India isn't too far away, nor Persia, and both are pretty enlightened groups of people who would enter discourse with a moderate Christian nation, I would think? I don't know what their policy on slavery is/was? But they're two other nations that are in the Abyssinian geographic area.

It'll certainly add a new topic and theme to the game, 'The Slavery Question'.

tkolter wrote:You my neighbor will have armies, I my spy network and willingness to use them in many fun ways, together we will defend Africa from outsiders who might do us harm.

Agents in Glori are handy for letting you know what is in position to hit you which can be handy when trying to work out where to deploy your forces but are not much use at actually stopping an attack. Though perhaps they can delay it a bit if willing to use high risk "Sabotage" attempts rather than just having a look at what is in a particular location.

Generally speaking agents are more handy for planning and helping an attack rather than for defensive purposes. So if the Ottomans suddenly find Egypt and their Red Sea bases crawling with your agents the risk is that they may decide you are hostile and attack first.

The Corsairs can confirm that some people are just so lacking in trust of your honourable and peaceful intentions at such times.

Ref the G10 thread I am wondering if its title should be changed to "What Pope Clement did next?"

Also wondering if many people have had a look at the new "Miscellany" publication. If they have not G10 players may be interested to read P47 & 48 on the Gallican Church.

In view of the position of the Gallican Church do French players need to be carefull over what they accept from Rome? After all who are we to amend the Pragmatic Sanction of 1269 agree for France by a Saint and not just any Saint either but Saint Louis the Royal Saint of France.Seems that decisions of a General Council of the Church are also above the Pope..............oh great I just hope Jason is not a expert on the Council of Trent or the Council of Constance etc.

The good news is that everyone agrees that the Pope has authority over canon law and page 29 had a section on Illegitimacy and Kingship in Catholic Europe (nothing about the Duke of Monmouth) with examples of illegitimate sons who had claimed the throne including:

- Manfred of Taranato an illegitimate son of the Emperor Frederick II who claimed the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The Pope called a crusade against him and a mostly French Army lead by a Duke of Anjou cut Manfred's head off. The Pope then made the Duke of Anjou King of the two Sicilies (in fief to Rome) for his trouble. But he only got Naples due to naughty men in Constantinople, Aragon and on the Island of Sicily who had no respect for the Pope and slaughtered Anjou's troops on the island as they came out of Church and later sunk a lot of his Navy.

- King Ferdinand I of Sicily who was later removed by legitimate relatives from Aragon/Spain

- John (or Joao) of Portugal the natural son who became King of Portugal in 1385 on the death of his legitimate half brother without issue. Since his legitimate brother became King before John its clearly the case in Portugal that a legitimate son ranks higher than a natural son but a natural son may outrank a legitimate sister since the alternative to John in 1385 was his legitimate sister Beatrice.

May be pushing it a bit to say this applies across Iberia since Beatrice was Queen of Castile and her husband invaded Portugal with a Spanish-French Army to enforce the claim of his wife only to be defeated by a Anglo-Portugese Army. Can of hard to say whay the Papal view on this was as at the time we had two Popes one on each side.

Generally speaking it seems the Papacy is really keen on upholding the institute of marriage and the rights of legitimate heirs. Guess that since so much of the Church is staffed by the natural children of the Nobility who "obey the rules" (apart from 1640 in Portugal) they do not like people who do not play by the rules. But holds the opinion that it can appoint who it wants to the Papal fiefs of Sicily and Sardinia.

What I find interesting is that whenever a issue like this comes up it always seems to involve Sicily or Portugal! In other places no one not even the men themselves tried to Crown Robert of Gloucester or Lord Hudson above legitimate sisters or tried to find a spare crown for Don Jon of Austria even thought his father had lots going spare and was dividing up his holdings amongst his family.

Not to be confused with the dark Christians of the Kingdom of Kongo, the ones whom the European Christians claimed were pagans so they could be enslaved, mind [see C16th history - Portugal and the Kingdom of Kongo]

Got to be careful what I write about on 'slavery' in southern Africa, since its mainly a C19th issue that went on into the C20th and it's repercussions are still a real issue today with various countries in that region.

Upon slavery, while obviously there wasn't a white "slave trade" in the same way as there was the African one, it did existed in an unofficial way. A little before the time of our games, but John Knox spent a period as a gallery slave on French galleys (don't get any ideas Stuart!), while what was effectively a slave trade in kidnapped children existed in Scotland in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Indian Pete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Williamson_(memoirist) is an example, learnt a lot about him in my time in Aberdeen. He and other children were held in the Tolbooth (a sign that the town elders were involved in the trade) before being shipped to the American colonies, musicians played outside the building-both the entertain the kids but also cover up any cries for help. Of course it was not anywhere near the level of the African slave trade and the child one from Scotland was technically for indentured service but not sure it would have felt much different

tkolter wrote:Oh they will once my spy network in the region and abroad are in place, I did the math and long term a well placed and used spy is worth far more than an military force and far cheaper per operative.

But I'm not ignoring well armed defense with fortified cities and two planned two southern fortresses of David and Sampson one more Westerly and ones Easterly.

And I plan something else which should boost the defenses and supplement the armies nicely long term.

If you don't mind saying what level of technology does Abyssinia have in-game? I remember one of the supplements saying they had trebuchets, but do you have access to gunpowder weapons? Don't worry, this isn't intelligence gathering before a Scottish invasion

Yes the nation has firearms and gunpowder, its not commonly in use most of the armies are traditional. But I would assume decent technology the nation historically wasn't very bad at all. Anyway I have another reason for spies to get technology from other nations say an agent pays a lot for cannon makers to relocated to Abyssinia and teach their craft why should I research when others did it already or its common tech for them?

Spies are there for many reasons why sit there are work hard when some money and agent actions can get faster results and its not even sinister.

Upon slavery, while obviously there wasn't a white "slave trade" in the same way as there was the African one, it did existed in an unofficial way. A little before the time of our games, but John Knox spent a period as a gallery slave on French galleys (don't get any ideas Stuart!),

Under the modern classification "slavery" serfs in Eastern Europe and the large numbers either under sentence of penal service or indentured service (who seem to have formed the majority of the White population in some American colonies) would be classed as Slaves.

"Hanging" Judge Jefferies who dealt with the trials after the Monmouth Revolt (not a popular man in the West Country!) should actually be called "Transporting" Judge Jefferies as the vast majority of the captured rebels and a few who were just in the wrong place were not hung but we sentenced to penal service in the West Indies. From which the Judge, the Crown and West Indies planters made a tidy profit.

However, a more classic white slave trade was practiced by the Ottomans esp the North African Corsairs and the Tarco-Tartar border raiders. The size of this trade is hard to judge but in one year alone the state derived a income of 18,000 gold ducats from slaves sent south from Caffa (approx 4500 @ 4 ducats per slave) and Caffa was just one of many Ports like Azov, Kerch, Taman and Kopa involved in the trade.

Plus when we look at the establishment of Cossack hosts to guard the borders, and fortified frontier limes in Russia and Hapsburg lands we are clearly dealing with something more than just a bit of kidnapping. The Tarter Khan's and the Barbary Corsair Chiefs clearly had nothing to leave from African Slavers. But perhaps their targets were a bit more organized and prone to hit back that many African Tribes.

But perhaps in G10 the Emperor can compare notes with the Czar, the Polish Commonwealth and others about the evils of Ottoman and other Slave Raiders.

Also, did you know serfdom still existed in Scotland, in a limited way, at this time? Not through the clan system but through mining (!). The short version is that if you were working in a Scottish coalmine at this time the law (passed in 1606) stated "no person should fee, hire or conduce and salters, colliers or coal bearers without a written authority from the master whom they had last served". Even when the Habeas Corpus Act was passed in Scotland in 1701 it had a clause excluding coal miners from its provisions. Though there was an act in the 1770s that started to end the practice, it wasn't until 1799 that it was abolished. It is a point of discussion on whether the 1606 law effectively introduced this form of serfdom into the Scottish mines or simply established in written law what was accepted practice. Some historians say Scotland was the first place where serfdom as an institution died out in 14th Century so they tend to prefer the early 17th Century as its reintroduction for a particular part of society. Others feel the practice had always been there and all that happened in the early 17th Century that as coal mining in Scotland suddenly took off, and there was a shortage of those with the right skills, the mine owners got the law passed to secure their ancient rights over workers. I tend towards the latter as I feel, given the general uptty-ness of the Scots at this time, if this was a new thing those affected would have revolted against its introduction and there is no indication of that.

Also, did you know serfdom still existed in Scotland, in a limited way, at this time? Not through the clan system but through mining (!). The short version is that if you were working in a Scottish coalmine at this time the law (passed in 1606) stated "no person should fee, hire or conduce and salters, colliers or coal bearers without a written authority from the master whom they had last served". Even when the Habeas Corpus Act was passed in Scotland in 1701 it had a clause excluding coal miners from its provisions. Though there was an act in the 1770s that started to end the practice, it wasn't until 1799 that it was abolished. It is a point of discussion on whether the 1606 law effectively introduced this form of serfdom into the Scottish mines or simply established in written law what was accepted practice. Some historians say Scotland was the first place where serfdom as an institution died out in 14th Century so they tend to prefer the early 17th Century as its reintroduction for a particular part of society. Others feel the practice had always been there and all that happened in the early 17th Century that as coal mining in Scotland suddenly took off, and there was a shortage of those with the right skills, the mine owners got the law passed to secure their ancient rights over workers. I tend towards the latter as I feel, given the general uptty-ness of the Scots at this time, if this was a new thing those affected would have revolted against its introduction and there is no indication of that.

Odd how miners always seem to be a set apart in legal terms from the rest of society.

In Cornwall the tin miners had their own Parliament and now you have moved down south you may like to look at the contractural basis of the mining in the Forest of Dean. Think general uptty-ness of Scots coal miners plus extra isolation, lead fumes and religion.

Ref the experience of the Scots coal miners to see if they were getting a really bad deal or not - you probably have to look at their wages and conditions compared to Farm Labour, Sailors and Industrial workers.

The way the law is worded it seems not to be saying workers could not go and work elsewhere. But was aimed at stopping mine owners from trying to pich rival mine owners labour by offering bonus payments and the like to induce miners to break their existing contract. Thus only indirectly was the law being used to stop miners getting higher wages by going off to work in another mine?

Wonder if Scots mines were fairly small with limited time before they were worked out and miners had to move on. So was the expectation a bit like the merchant Navy were you signed to do a certain voyage (or work a mine) and were then bound in contract to complete the voyage (work out the mine) before you moved onto your next ship/mine?

Not sure about Scotland but in the West Country the general conception was that compared to farming and other industries miners had the worst job and in return should be paid higher than other workers.

Just to remind myself, as much as anyone else, Rozwi can produce black powder firearms if needed. I don't know what the level of gunpowder supplies would be, however? And I'm guessing all issued firearms and gun powder would be purchased from foreign merchants and not locally produced. LOW AMMO might be an issue after a battle, I'd think? (do we still have such a state in this version of the game?)

Stuart Bailey wrote:...miners had the worst job and in return should be paid higher than other workers.

Rozwi's miners are on double pay due to the dangerous nature of their job. I suppose this is where the use of a slave labour force would come in handy (and contemporary mining methods!)

Stuart Bailey wrote: Odd how miners always seem to be a set apart in legal terms from the rest of society.

In Cornwall the tin miners had their own Parliament and now you have moved down south you may like to look at the contractural basis of the mining in the Forest of Dean. Think general uptty-ness of Scots coal miners plus extra isolation, lead fumes and religion.

Ref the experience of the Scots coal miners to see if they were getting a really bad deal or not - you probably have to look at their wages and conditions compared to Farm Labour, Sailors and Industrial workers.

The way the law is worded it seems not to be saying workers could not go and work elsewhere. But was aimed at stopping mine owners from trying to pich rival mine owners labour by offering bonus payments and the like to induce miners to break their existing contract. Thus only indirectly was the law being used to stop miners getting higher wages by going off to work in another mine?

Wonder if Scots mines were fairly small with limited time before they were worked out and miners had to move on. So was the expectation a bit like the merchant Navy were you signed to do a certain voyage (or work a mine) and were then bound in contract to complete the voyage (work out the mine) before you moved onto your next ship/mine?

Not sure about Scotland but in the West Country the general conception was that compared to farming and other industries miners had the worst job and in return should be paid higher than other workers.

I had the chance to visit the mining museum at Radstock recently, very informative on the local coal mining industry.

You're right on the difference-ness of miners. In Scotland they seem to have got the rough end of the deal-nothing like Stannery courts or parliaments, miners who ran away were regularly dragged back, anyone who employed a miner without written permission of their former employer was sued, no evidence of generally better pay (with some periods of extremes in both directions), etc. Frankly the situation in Scotland was if you worked in the mine you were tied to that mine, it also seems traditional-your dad worked the mines, so you did so you son did. I have seen claims of such things as miners not allowed to marry without the mine owners permission, etc, but the source material isn't always secure shall we say From what I've seen there doesn't seem any indication that the miners were better paid, had generally better conditions, etc than the rest of the workforce, that offset their legal status.

The mines themselves had varying lives, some short, some incredibly long. There were some quite amazing innovations in the industry too at various times but it was always small compared to England and other nations.

Just to remind myself, as much as anyone else, Rozwi can produce black powder firearms if needed. I don't know what the level of gunpowder supplies would be, however? And I'm guessing all issued firearms and gun powder would be purchased from foreign merchants and not locally produced. LOW AMMO might be an issue after a battle, I'd think? (do we still have such a state in this version of the game?)

That's interesting. I must admit I had assumed tribal societies like the Rozwi wouldn't have had the skills. Does Richard state any limits on your ability to manufacture firearms? For example in China, you can only manufacture matchlocks and artillery isn't wheeled.

There is a low ammo rule in games, best countered with magazines and (I think?) supply lines.

Just to remind myself, as much as anyone else, Rozwi can produce black powder firearms if needed. I don't know what the level of gunpowder supplies would be, however? And I'm guessing all issued firearms and gun powder would be purchased from foreign merchants and not locally produced. LOW AMMO might be an issue after a battle, I'd think? (do we still have such a state in this version of the game?)

That's interesting. I must admit I had assumed tribal societies like the Rozwi wouldn't have had the skills. Does Richard state any limits on your ability to manufacture firearms? For example in China, you can only manufacture matchlocks and artillery isn't wheeled.

There is a low ammo rule in games, best countered with magazines and (I think?) supply lines.

Matchlock only and no artillery.

To be honest, I've always considered it a left-over from the position info from the expanded early versions of LGDR (when the game wasn't, possibly, as interested in historical accuracy and allowed more freedom to wargame). Since January 1700 the Rozwi 'what we can and can't build' info has been altered slightly since I've been asking questions and stating what certain weapons are - such as, spears are the stabbing variety and not throwing, and having Africans have access to river canoes.

As I've said in the past, I went into this position not having much luck finding info on the historic Rozwi / Rozvi so couldn't base my game plan on something comparable. There is some info available on the earlier kingdoms who the Karange Rozvi conquered as they moved into the Great Zimbabwe civilisations area, but I couldn't find the information for free on the Internet and the books were either expensive, or only had short passages on these specifics as they concentrated on the larger African history. It was easier to just base my game-play on the amaZulu tribe, at the time, and I've just been fudging it ever since, basing it all on Shaka's Zulu nation and adding bits from other Bantu Tribal Africans as I choose.

Of interest is the fact that the Rozwi page on Wikipedia has considerably grown with information since this game's first turn. Coincidence? Certainly it wasn't me who has been updating the information. Whomever is responsible certainly has my thanks

I have some ideas on how to fast track getting technology which would be of use to the Abyssinian Empire. It's at lest something no one tried before or it would be in the rules or in the back posts for these games so it might be innovative. If it doesn't work oh well it would be worth the try.